Talk:Yazidis

Yazidi or Yezidi

In the Kurdish language (Latin script), this word is written as Yezîdî. Its transliteration into English would be Yazidi. The Yazidis themselves prefer the former, since it is in Kurdish-Latin script.

Heja Helweda 20:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How is Yezidis treated? -- Lupinoid

The Yezidi have a history of being persecuted - often due to the mistaken belief that they worship Satan. As far as I know, there is no history of them being persecuted in recent times, although I imagine that in Iraq they, along with Iraqi Christians, are rather worried about the possibility of Islamic fundamentalists coming to power. -- Michael Voytinsky

Its not a mistaken belief they admit to worshiping saten.The same angel that rebelled agenst god in all three abrahmic religions, only differance is they say it was done out of love rather than pride. The peacock refers to saten going back into heaven,hidden in the feathers of a peacock to decieve adam into eating the forbiden fruit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.35.69 (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2007

The connection of the Yazidis to the Ummawiy khalif Yazid is a common folk etymology, but almost certainly false. The Pahlavi (Ancient Persian) word for angel is "yazd", an element common, for example, in the names of Sassanian shahs, such as the three Yazdegerds. The Kurds are a Persian speaking people with strong Persian cultural ties predating the rise of Islam and the Arab ascendance in the Middle East and the name most likely arises from this background.

I will change the article accordingly. If this is problematic for anyone, please talk to me before editing. Thanks. Ddama

As far as I know, Kurds arenot persian speaking. Their language is Kurdish, which has some common roots with persian, but it isnot intelligible to persians nowadays. Heja Helweda 04:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Heja is right, Kurds do not speak persian but kurdish. they have their own language and culture. However, kurdish has close ties to persian, arabic and turkish 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

What's the deal with Yazidi vs. Yezidi? It just sounds like a transliteration difference to me and not a plural pattern in either Arabic or Medieval or Modern Persian. Further, the 'Yazidi' themselves seem to prefer the Yezidi pronunciation.

I am removing the claim that Yezidi is plural. However, I would like a consensus of contributors to this article before changing every use of Yazidi in this article and the entire Wiki to Yezidi. Please let me know if this is a problem. I probably won't be making the change for some time, at least a month, so I hope everyone has a chance to respond.

Thanks. Ddama

I don't agree that any such changes should be made until we have some documentation (a citation?) one way or the other. IMO lack of info isn't a good reason to change article content. On the other hand I have no info to offer on the subject, just my opinion as I have stated it :) Sam Spade 04:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'm not sure which of the two changes you're referring to, although I guess I didn't distinguish them very well in my prior talk entry.

If you refer to the change on plurals, I'm reasonably comfortable with Arabic, a language with pluralization rules so complex that linguists coined the term "broken plural" to describe them, but I don't really know Persian. From what I've seen, Persian plurals are traditionally formed by adding an -an to the end of the word in Pahlavi (Middle Persian), which evolved into -ha in Parsi (Modern Persian). Persian also accepts some Arabic plurals, due to cultural exposure, but uses them weirdly. If the word falls into this category, or some weird category of Persian loanwords in Arabic that pluralize even more abnormally than usual, or one of the many ways that Kurdish differs from mainstream Persian, than I may be wrong. However, I would err on the side of needing to see positive proof for such a claim, rather than negative proof that it does not exist.

If you refer to whether this article and all of Wikipedia should refer to Yazidi or Yezidi, it is not the biggest deal, and is likely only a transliteration issue. However, both of the external links in this article, which point to Yezidi webpages, use the term Yezidi. Further, the unscientific, but generally accurate, technique of polling Google showed three times more hits on Yezidi than Yazidi. Also note that a significant number of the Yazidi hits come from sites that mirror or filch from Wikipedia, and should thus be regarded statistical noise.

I'm not absolutely sure the change is the correct thing to do, but I definitely feel the issue should be raised. Wow... ten minutes ago I didn't even realized I had any feelings at all on the issue ;)

Regards. Ddama

Hehe.. I still almost don't. I just liked the idea of such an unusual plural, and I have seen it spelled the one way, and also the other. Considering how insular the Yezidi are, its entirely possible they have evolved their own curious variations on typical kurdish pluralizations, but if they did I can't imagine how it would be transliterated to being the difference of a or e in that way. I guess my main point is that I'd like it to be true, even tho I doubt it is, and I appreciate you bringing it up since it is such an odd particular. Cheers, Sam Spade 08:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Only few refugees in Germany?

I have read somewhere that actually the largest community of Yezidi is now in Germany, similar to the Alewis. This is maybe hard to confirm. Cheers, Gerhard

Adam

The article says they claim descent from Adam only. Would I be correct in the assumtion that they believe that there exist people not descended from Adam? --Tydaj 01:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read that they believe all non-Yezidi to be descended from Adam and Eve. Only the Yezidi are descended from Adam alone. Xnoubis

Beliefs: How many angels again?

There is possibly conflicting information on display under Religious Beliefs. In paragraph one, it says that the world is in the care of a "Heptad of seven Holy Beings, often known as Angels", but in paragraph 3, it says that God created Melek Ta’us (interesting that compared to paragraph 1, this being's name has an apostophe), the pre-eminent of the Holy Beings (paragraph 1), and "the other seven archangels were created later on." Uhhh, now hang on. That would mean there is EIGHT of these beings. Should that say "the other SIX archangels"? Aragond 12:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is an apparent disjoining in paragraph 3 regarding the refusal by Melek Ta’us to bow to Adam. Earlier in the chapter, "God ordered Melek Ta’us not to bow to other beings." but then apparently God inquired of Melek Ta'us why he wasn't bowing, to which the Holy Being said his bit. This COULD be just an inconsistency (so to speak, without wanting to offend any Yazidi amongst the readership) in the texts of belief or God just testing Melek Ta'us, OR (and here is my question) someone is transcribing incorrectly. Can I get a witness confirmation that it is one or t'other?

No tears?

In earlier versions of the Yazidi article, I read the following:

"According to the Yazidi, Malak Ta'us is a fallen peacock angel who repented and recreated the world that had been broken. He filled seven jars with his tears and used them to quench the fire in Hell."

I realize that the current article describes Malak Ta'us as the leader of archangels and not a fallen angel, but why has the tears part been omitted from the current version? Was this false or just accidentally deleted out of the article? Thanks, Crushed Obsidian 02:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing out anecdotal information.

I don't know enough about the subject to be able to make corrections but the additions to beliefs strike me as being overly POV, anecdotal and confusing.

For example: Allah is characterized by ninety-nine [99] names, amoung them "the tyrant"&"the wily One".Certain qualities associate by Christians with "evil" are thus divinized by the Quran as attributes of God's majestic or "terrible"aspect.In this context,Satan cannot aspire to a separate or substantial autonomy-hispower cannot oppose Allah's but must instead derive from & complemeny it.Islam admits no 'original sin",only forgotfulness of the Real;likewise,cosmos/nature cannot be considered "evil" in itself,since it is a reflection or aspect of the Real. David Cheater 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The section you deleted was badly proofread and seemed to be cut and pasted from a website (copyright?). I would have delete it myself but I didn't want to interfere in something I also know little about. Castanea dentata 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Tattoos

We were talking about this religion in our class and we brought up the point that Kurds would have tattoos of the peacock angel on their necks, but I do not believe that this is possible since the religion was persecuted and the followers did not want to give away their identity. Sandy June 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yazidi

Yes Yazidis do consider Zoroastrain as originally Yazidi. It is not a surprise; every religion has its own beliefs. http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_3218.shtml 66.79.163.189 10:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that source reads "It is even possible as Yazidi say that Zoroaster was a Yazidi." but it also says ". "Others say that their religion come from Zoroastrians." Every religion has its own beliefs, but these seem to be rather personal beliefs which have nothing to do with the religious beliefs. Plus thats not an academic article, infact I dont know what it is -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 11:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica and Plagiarism

A large section of this article is lifted verbatim from a recent edition of the Encyclopedia Iranica. While the Iranica project allows free viewing, I belive that they have not surrendered copyright and the material is not in the public domain. This is a potential problem for WP.

Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the Iranica article's claim that the consensus of modern scholars is that the name Yezidi comes from Yazid I is utter and complete bunk and I will take it up with the editor when I have a chance. If no one here objects within the next week, I will change the entry. Ddama 00:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ddama, you should just change it when you have the time, if its in someone elses work. Who added the stuff that was lifted from it? I agree with the idea that their name is from Yazid I, to think that he ran off and ends up amoung kurds in what was old assyria and convinces them to worship a peacock god out of nowhere is....odd, to say the least Nygdan 1-18-2006

Discussion of the See Also Information

The druze and kizilbash aren't related to the yezidis anymore than the zoroasterians. I'd think that it'd make sense to include under 'see also' groups that are similar to the yezidis, no? nygdan 1-22-06

I assume they're included because they're minority indigenous religious groups of the middle east. Tomer^talk 17:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Tshilo: that and also that they have paganistic roots. These groups or at least portions of these groups, are similar to the yezidis, in so far as they have 'adopted' islamic ideas and added it to their native religion. The yezidis have only a veneer of islam covering them, the kizilbash of cappodocia are noted as having paganistic rites and practices (very similar to the ones practed in the same region before the advent of islam), and the alawis' theology is, in essence, a stellar cult with neoplatonic influences, indeed, another name for them, the nosairi (and variations there of), are what the pre-islamic religions of that same region were once called. So its all part of this idea of cypto-paganism Nygdan 21:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The entry and previous comments mention Yezidi come from Persia. Did they originally come from Yazd (Yezd), Iran?

Yazidism and Zoroastrianism

Funnily enough the sources of this "legend" do not seem to talk about this legend!

First source says: "Zoroastrianism is an Iranian religion; the Kurds are also Iranian"

How does this support the section where it says "According to a Yazidi legends Zoroaster was a Yezidi who left them."?!

Second source is the same as the first source. However it is being treated like it is an important legend which has been put on this article even though it is totally un-important and it is contradictory to Zoroastrian's beliefs -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It may very well contradict Zoroastrian belief, but this page is about Yazidi belief. Please don't delete entire sections until a consensus is reached on the talk page first.--WilliamThweatt 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter if it is or not. Read my above statement to understand that such thing may don't even exist, or if it does, its not a legend with such importantance to be mentioned on Wikipedia. -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yazidi Legends are worth mentioning on this page. It may not be important from your personal point of view (or Zoroastrian for that matter) but from a Yazidi point of view it is important, since that's how they understand and intrepret the history of their faith.Heja Helweda 03:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to understand, your source does NOT claim that it is a legend. Stop adding it to the article -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

temple picture

the temple picture ("40 men")seems to be missing from commons. --Vindheim 10:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yezidis

Thia article covers Yezidis as adherents of a belief not as a separate ethnic group. In Armenia they are counted officially on the census and regarded as a separate ethnic (not religious) group separate from Kurds.--Eupator 20:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources for this? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the following personal comments from Rafael1930 (talk · contribs) here - Skysmith 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in Kurdistan, north west Iraq, not far from the Iranian border, in the camp of Mustapha Barazani (Pesh Merga)in the winter of 1966-7. There were poeple who called themselves Yazidis among the Kurds we (Israel) helped in several ways. Detailed description of this help can be found in two Hebrew book:

• 1.Tsafrir Eliezer (Geizi) Ana Kurdi (I am a Kurd)

Hed Arzi Publishing House, Or Yehuda 60376 Israel 1999

• 2. Nakdimon Shlomo: A Crashed Hope: The Israel Kurdish relations, 1963 - 1975. Miscall 1996.

I was an MD with the Israeli delegation & became very friendly with the locals. Some of them, Yazidi, told me that they worshipped Shaitan, but this, according to literature above might have been derived from Zeus. Others told me they were of Ashoori origin. They definitely had Hebrew sounding names, such as Itzhak, Yakoob & one was called Kaissar. They had European looking faces. At that time I kept a detailed diary, but it was lost over the years. I do, however, have photos, copies of which can be displayed. In their book Williams, Kayla, and Michael E. Staub. 2005. "Love My Rifle More Than You." (W.W. Norton, New York. ISBN 0393060985) I remember to have read, among other things, that the Yazidi sympathize Israel. The above might explain this point. At the moment I'm unable to find the exact reference. Dr. Rafael Springmann-Ribak, formerly Springmann, 6 Klee Street, Tel Aviv 62336, Israel

Move from Yazidi to Yezidi

I don't know how the article originally got its name, but in Armenia this group is always referred to as Yezidi. The Yezidi in Turkey apparently spell it Yezidi, and on google, there are 3 times more references to Yezidi than Yazidi. I think it only makes sense to move the page to Yezidi, and make Yazidi (if anyone is spelling it based on how it sounds) point to Yezidi. Votes, thoughts, comments, objections? --RaffiKojian 02:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Both words have the same spelling, but in two different alphabets. Yazidi is the transliteration of the local name in English alphabet, while Yezidi(or more correctly Yezîdî pronounced as YAZEEDEE ) is the Kurdish spelling. E in Kurdish Latin alphabet has the same sound as A in FAT. So sometimes, Kurds who write in English, use the Kurdish spelling, and others may have copied from them.Heja Helweda 00:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Tears

In a section above someone asked why a legend about Satan putting out the fires of hell with 7 jars of tears was removed. I just came to this article because someone in my college classes mentioned this story, and there is still nothing about it. Let's discuss this issue. Academic Challenger 06:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That story is repeated at Melek Taus. I've heard it mentioned often, but I've never found a source for it. I've read the Black Book, and it's not in there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yazidi/Yazdanism?

The claim that Yazidism is a minor branch of "Yazdanism" I have never seen made in any other article or text outside of wikipedia. This claim needs a citation to substantiate it. This appears to be a leap in trying to connect the Yazidi religion with other isolated Kurdish/Middle Eastern faiths. The Alevi faith I have also never seen connected with "Yazdanism" but only viewed as an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and there seems to be nothing in common with their beliefs at all and those of Yazidis or Yarsans. Yarsans and Yazidis seem to have some commonalities in their beliefs, ie, the various avatars and beings associated with God and the universe; beyond these however, it seems that the claim of these religions having some common origin is, for the most part, complete speculation based on the proximity of their geographic origins along with the isolation they all share in common in a mostly Islamic region.--Masterryux 22:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually read it in several places, but I haven't really looked on the internet. The idea is that there was once a widespread, Kurdish-based faith centered on the worship of the angels. With the rise of Islam most converted, the ancestors to today's Yezidi did not, and still others incorporated their old practices into their new religion. This is what the Alevi did. I don't think it's fair to count them as a "branch" of Yazdanism, since they are practicing Muslims, but their ancestors were and their current practices retain traces of that. I'll try to find the books I found that in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kayla Williams' account

I have removed from the paragraph on Kayla Williams' account the statement that the shrine she visited was the Chermera Temple-- it may well have been (the photo looks similar to one in her book), but Williams makes no claim to that effect, and if an editor thinks that it was, some verifiable source should be provided. Further claims about the temple being related to Jesus I have separated as a distinct paragraph-- these claims are not in Williams' book. In fact, these claims are utterly unsourced, and my first inclination was to remove them. However, much of the article is unsourced, and a consistent application of that policy would leave a much shorter article. MayerG 03:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiz-Les-Loo

• Does this supposed Yazidi "fighting ritual" or martial art, "...that most efficient form of jujutsu", really exist? Is it documented in any credible reference sources on the Yazidis?

For anyone who is baffeld by this, Fiz-Les-Loo was mentioned by Gurdjieff.

Tolkien

The Yazidi beliefs seem to bear a striking similarity to Tolkien's Silmarillion. Is there any connection?

• In what way? - Skysmith 11:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

????1Z 09:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article larger than the Yazdansim article?

Shouldn't quite a bit of this be there and not here? Zazaban 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what, stuff from all three articles on the denominations should be moved there. Zazaban 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is dishonest

The article leads one to believe that the description of the Yazidi as Satan-worshipers or devil-worshipers is utterly erroneous: "Pre-eminent among these is Melek Taus (Tawûsê Melek in Kurdish), the Peacock Angel, who is equated with Satan or Devil by some Muslims and Christians. According to the Encyclopedia of the Orient, "The reason for the Yazidis reputation of being devil worshipers, is connected to the other name of Melek Taus, Shaytan, the same name as the Koran's for Satan."[2] However, according to the Kurdish linguist Jamal Nebez, the word Taus is most probably derived from the Greek and is related to the words Zeus and Theos, alluding to the meaning of God. Accordingly, Malak Ta'us is God's Angel, and this is how Yezidis themselves see Melek Taus or Taus-e-Malak ([3], page 21)."

Though well-intentioned, this is a complete sacrifice of truth to what the writer considers to be good public-relations for a minority religious group. It is no linguistic mix-up that has led to the Yazidi association with "devil worship". As John Bruno Hare writes in his foreword to "The Sacred Books and Traditions of the Yezidiz" by Isya Joseph, "[...] it would be intellectually dishonest to try to gloss over the devil-worship aspect, and to do so is to miss one of the things that make Yezidi beliefs so unique and worth studying. First of all one must put aside preconceived notions as to what 'devil-worship' means. As Joseph says (p. 155) "It is interesting to note that, in the history of religion, the god of one people is the devil of another." Their cosmology is so radically different from the dominant paradigm that it is hard to translate the concepts. The Yezidis believe in a single creator, who created a set of other deities which could be just as well be called demons, angels, or gods. The primary one of these, and the one that the Yezidi worship, is called Melek Ta`us, who is represented as a peacock. One scholar (whom Joseph disagrees with) traces this name to that of Tammuz, the ancient Syrian deity. Joseph states, and most other scholars would agree, (p. 148) "[Melek Ta`us] denotes the devil and nothing else. This is so clear to the Yezidis, or to anyone acquainted with their religion, as to leave no need for further discussion". So why do they worship the devil? In some polytheistic religions good and evil deities are worshipped equally; the good gods so that good things will happen, and the evil ones also are propitiated so that bad things won't happen. The Yezidi theology differs in that God is so good that he has no need of worship; the Devil is sort of a firewall between this imperfect world and the perfection of the supreme being. This is similar to the Gnostic concept that God, being purely good, had to create a set of intermediaries, the Aeons, so that they could create a world which includes evil."

Lacking the time to do it myself, I hope someone revises the article as needed. JDG 09:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is true, as you write, that one group's god is another group's devil, you will still by using the word "devil-worship" side with one group against another, i.e. you take a stance anti-yezidi. Labelling them "satanist" as you seem to want begs the question: do they worhip what they themselves perceive as evil ? If not, that label is utterly false and misleading. --Vindheim 12:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two valid arguments here. On the one hand, there is a lot of evidence to show that the Yazidi deity is historically identified with the "Satan" of Christianity or Islam (perhaps influenced by Gnostic or early heterodox Christian traditions). On the other hand, the Yazidi see this deity as benevolent rather than as an evil, corrupting figure. I think it's probably a bad idea to use the word "Satanist" to describe them since that's such a loaded word for most readers. Hopefully there's a way to describe the historical connection between their deity and the Christian Satan, while emphasizing the completely different moral dimension. I think it's instructive to look at the article on Mandaeism, another minority religion of the Middle East: in that religion, Jesus (the Christian Messiah) is seen as a false prophet or even a malevolent figure... it's clear that different religious groups made can make different judgments about deities and leaders that they share. MOXFYRE (contrib)

"who created a set of other deities which could be just as well be called demons, angels, or gods"

Or Archons, as in Gnosticism.1Z 09:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't deal with the dishonesty of the article. It presents the 'devil-worshipper' view as a misunderstanding. However, it is not a misunderstanding, but a disagreement. The Yazidi tradition clearly relates to the Jewish/Christian/Islamic tradition, and the Peacock Angel clearly relates to the Fallen Angel/Lucifer figure. The writing of this article is - very understandably - trying to deny this obvious fact and it provides the motivation for persecution. This is not valid for an encyclopedia and in the real world counterproductive, since the fanatics know the facts anyway.--Jack Upland 08:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no dishonesty. Yazidis are not devilworshippers, Though Melek Tawus may be identified with SH**TAN, he is not identified with evil, and the implication of the word "devilworshipper" is precisely this: worshipping what is perceived as evil. Many christians consider Allah to be Satan. That does not make muslims into devilworshippers.--Vindheim 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That comment just demonstrates ignorance. Arab Christians worship "Allah" too (it's just Arab for "God" - cognate with Hebrew Elohim). It's also evasive: the issue isn't whether "devilworshipper" is an appropriate term or whether the Yazidi are in favour of evil (or even if they are evil). The issue is being honest about the history of the religion. The religion is an offspring of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam matrix with their "deity" being an interpretation of Satan in this tradition. Similarly Jews and Christians have a different interpretation of the Messiah; Easter is a radical reworking of the Passover; Muslims venerate Jesus as a prophet, not the Son of God; the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Koran cover the same narratives with different emphases and interpretations etc, etc, etc. Wikipedia is about being correct, not being nice.--Jack Upland 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent History NPOV?

The first sentence of the Recent History section, listing allegations of Yazidis maneuvering against the Kurds, appears to be exactly what the following sentences imply came from the Baathists - propaganda. I am by NO means an expert on this, and don't presume to be correct, this is simply something that seems to be a fairly strong statement to be making without a citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.184.208 (talk) 05:30, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Concerned with purity eh?

http://www.aina.org/news/20070425181603.htm

Geez. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.152.171.153 (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

This image?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/69277150@N00/409282484/

Would this be good for the article? gren グレン 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

a discussion in Lalish

I had the opportunity to visit the Yazidi community in Lalish, Kurdistan in November 2007. I spent close to two hours visiting the shrine and community. Our young guide was a member of the community and very kind to answer our questions. When I asked him "Who do the Yazidis worship?" He very simply answered "Allah". When I further asked "Who is Allah to you (the Yazidis)?" He responded with, "He is the Only God, the same God of Muslims, Christians, and Jews." He continued on to explain Malik Ta'us as the prince of the seven angels. When I asked if they worship Malik Ta'us, he said "No, we worship Allah." He kindly showed me each room of the shrine including the tomb of Sheik Adi and the holy baptismal room where a spring of water comes out of the ground. I was invited to stay for the daily lighting of the 365 lights in the shrine from 3:30 to 5 pm when the entire community comes to pray. I found the Yazidi community to be very kind and welcoming. They were more than willing to allow me to take photographs and ask questions. When I visited Lalish I had no idea how few Yazidis there were in the world. I do not know if the conversation I had with my guide is representative of all Yazidis, from what I read it seems it is not, but I know the young man was speaking from some level of authority as a believer of his faith. Occidentally East 10:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask them whether they view themselves as Kurds or as separate ethnic group? --Koryakov Yuri 16:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Kurds are essentially a linguistic group, speaking a language radically different from Arabic. The Yazidi follow an interpretation of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, worshipping Allah but appeasing the Peacock Angel who a.k.a. Lucifer who according to worldwide extrabiblical legend was head of the angels (see Milton's Paradise Lost, for example). Under the current adverse conditions - especially in Iraq - the Yazidi are hardly likely to come out and say they venerate Satan, or rather massage his ego so that he doesn't wreak havoc on the world. But that is the case.--Jack Upland 21:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what i know

I am an Ezid was born in Soviet Union. These are the facts:

1. The name is Ezid not Yazid or Yezid or Yazidi. Those names are different versions in different countries I think.

2. We do not worship the Devil; there are old folks who still worship the sun that’s all.

3. The people who speak Kurdish, speak in Muslim states languages, or converted to Islam are no Ezid. Also to note that Ezid's from Soviet Union are different to those who live in Muslim states. In time they merged with Islamic traditions and language.

My father told me: Long time ago Ezid's were and are prosecuted for not believing in Islam so they fled to Russia-Soviet Union where many still live there.

4. People say that we are Kurds, but we are not they are very different cultures and have nothing in common. Russia-Soviet Union accepted us as an Ethnicity, rather stating Kurds or none at all. (on a Soviet passport stated ezid).

The reason I sad that Ezid’s from Russia-Soviet Union are different because, we were given freedom to exercise in our belief .In time we also picked some Orthodox Christian traditions

If more information needed just ask Sorry if i offended someone

As this commentator says, she/he is distant from the tradition, geographically and ideologically, and is relying on vague second-hand information. At the same time she/he is unable to be objective. The Ezid/Yazidi are undoubtably related to other Kurdish speakers. And if the Ezid did "worship the sun", how does this relate to the Peacock Angel tradition? What precisely does this mean anyway? And, once again, saying they don't "worship the devil" is evading the point. It's setting up a strawman: the serious issue is the historical relationship of their angelelogy to that of the "Abrahamaic faiths".--Jack Upland 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Lettuce? "koasasa"?

There's mention that eating lettuce might be forbidden b/c the word resembles the word "koasasa". Shouldn't the article say or broadly describe what "koasasa" means, since that would explain why it's avoided? For example, does "koasasa" mean feces or does it indicate something from a conflicting religion? 198.151.217.26 14:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --MosheA 01:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Blue

I've never heard that the Yazidi are prohibited from wearing blue. Can someone please find an outside source for this? --MosheA 01:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Telegraph (August 19th 2007) mentions this taboo - but there's no source given. It must have some foundation though.Malick78 15:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - the Tele made it up(!).--Jack Upland 21:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Myths

Is it proper for an article about a religion that currently exists to be associated with the Inforbox "Myths of the Fertile Crescent"? This seems disrespectful, -- Pokeyrmb 06:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yazidi persecution

After the recent bombing where hmm 200-500 people died, I was wondering if there was any major effort to remove the Yazidis to a safer location...Europe etc. I would think that as a non(People of the book) they probably never had Dhimmi status.. DomDomsta333 11:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What European country would want hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Th answer is noNe . However, more To the point, the Kurdistan Region wants to expand into the Sinjar area, and after the recent attack a group of Peshmerga were indeed posted to Sinjar.--Vindheim 09:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Malak Taus, or however it's spelled

I first removed what I felt was personal bias creeping into a quote. Blavatsky was not so inept a writer as to use the clause however in any way other than to prepare the reader for a contradiction. Then I decided to look up the quote itself:

This is a view from Secret Doctrine-II by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky:

Yezidis (Arabic) [possibly from Persian yazdan god; or the 2nd Umayyad Caliph, Yazid (r. 680 - 683); or Persian city Yezd] A sect dwelling principally in Kurdistan, Armenia, and the Caucasus, who call themselves Dasni. Their religious beliefs take on the characteristics of their surrounding peoples, inasmuch as, openly or publicly, they regard Mohammed as a prophet, and Jesus Christ as an angel in human form. Points of resemblance are found with ancient Zoroastrian and Assyrian religion. The principal feature of their worship, however, is Satan under the name of Muluk-Taus. However, it is not the Christian Satan, nor the devil in any form; their Muluk-Taus is the hundred- or thousand-eyed cosmic wisdom, pictured as a bird. (the peacock)

I cannot find that statement anywhere in The Secret Doctrine. In the online copy, found here, I looked through the index and only found two references to the Yezidi: here and here. The first section I linked to, has this to say about the Yezidis and Malak Taus:

As said: "The Christians -- far less clear-sighted than the great Mystic and Liberator whose name they have assumed, whose doctrines they have misunderstood and travestied, and whose memory they have blackened by their deeds -- took the Jewish Jehovah as he was, and of course strove vainly to reconcile the Gospel of Light and Liberty with the Deity of Darkness and Submission." ("War in Heaven.")*

That asterisk points to a footnote:

By Godolphin Mitford, later in life, Murad Ali Bey. Born in India, the son of a Missionary, G. Mitford was converted to Islam, and died a Mahomedan in 1884. He was a most extraordinary Mystic, of a great learning and remarkable intelligence. But he left the Right Path and forthwith fell under Karmic retribution. As well shown by the author of the article quoted "The followers of the defeated Elohim, first massacred by the victorious Jews (the Jehovites), and then persuaded by the victorious Christians and Mohamedans, continued nevertheless. . . Some of these scattered sects have lost even the tradition of the true rationale of their belief -- to worship in secrecy and mystery the Principle of Fire, Light, and Liberty. Why do the Sabean Bedouins (avowedly Monotheists when dwelling in the Mohamedan cities) in the solitude of the desert night yet invoke the starry 'Host of Heaven'? Why do the Yezidis, the 'Devil Worshippers,' worship the 'Muluk-Taoos' -- The 'Lord Peacock' -- the emblem of pride and of hundred-eyed intelligence (and of Initiation also), which was expelled from heaven with Satan, according to an old Oriental tradition? Why do the Gholaites and their kindred Mesopotamo-Iranian Mohamedan Sects believe in the 'Noor Illahee' -- the Light of the Elohim -- transmitted in anastasis through a hundred Prophet Leaders? It is because they have continued in ignorant superstition the traditional religion of the 'Light Deities whom Jahveh overthrew' (is said to have overthrown rather); for by overthrowing them he would have overthrown himself. The'Muluk-Taoos' -- is Maluk -- 'Ruler' as is shown in the foot-note. It is only a new form of Moloch, Melek, Molech, MaIayak, and Malachim" -- Messengers, Angels, etc.

So, I would love to know who added the original quote, and where the heck they claimed to have found it. I'll start by going through the history of the article, slowly and painstakingly.--Vidkun 14:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is when it was added. No page reference, no edition info, I can't accept this as having come from SD. I googled some of the phrases in this "quote", and they all point to this wikipedia page. No other source. It's bogus.--Vidkun 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NOW I'll re-add it, because I finally found the reference: electronic version of the Encyclopedic Theosophical Glossary.--Vidkun 14:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Russian population

no Yezidi figure in the 2002 Russian census: see Demographics_of_Russia#Ethnic_groups. It is possible that there are some communities in the Russian Caucasus, but 30,000 seems greatly exaggerated. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They might be counted for being Kurds... --Vonones 11:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up and the distribution of the Yezidi (and Kurds) within Russia is surprising. They are very widely dispersed. According to the census spreadsheet I have the total figure in the 2002 census for the Yezidi was 31,273, of whom only 9804 lived in South Russia (incl a mere 98 people in the seven autonomous republics in the Caucasus!). The census was based on self-declaration of nationality. Oblasts with over 500 were:-

Tula 608 Tambov 1024 Yaroslavl 2718 Moscow (city) 1643

Kaliningrad 504

Krasnodar 4441 Stavropol 2417 Volgograd 1116 Rostov 1631

Bashkortorstan 577 Nizhny Novgorod 3076 Samara 555 Saratov 942

Sverdlovsk 929

Novosibirsk 1987

NB - Of the total Kurdish population of 19,607, 11663 live in South Russia, again a smaller proportion than I thought.

Orel 740 Tambov 688 Moscow (city) 695

Adygea 3631 Krasnodar 5022 Stavropol 1259 Rostov 562

Jameswilson 01:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

so, can you explain why they are missing from Demographics_of_Russia#Ethnic_groups? Is this a mistake? dab (𒁳) 12:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its just that that list doesnt include all the smaller ethnic groups. On that language-based classification presumably they should come under Indo-Europeans. The www.perepis.ru census site is down but here are the relevant ru:wiki pages:-

full list of ethnic groups rcognised in the census (see Езиды)

and Yezidi article (see table under Россия)

PS - I wonder if a lot of the Yezidi in Russia are recent refugees from Georgia where the population fell sharply after the break-up of the Soviet Union according to the article. That might explain why they are widely dispersed. On the other hand, if I understand the Russian article correctly it seems to say that the main cultural centre of the Yezidi in Russia is Yaroslavl with some sort of official "cultural autonomy" status.

Jameswilson 22:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet ethnic policy saw a lot of population transfer - both benign and malign. With any industrialising society we would expect a cosmopolitan mix in the major cities, regardless of the distance from the ethnic groups historical homeland. Despite erratic episodes of "dogwhistling" persecution (anti-cosmopolitanism etc), the official policy was always the equal status of all nationalities, however small. (See above comment about "Ezid" being listed as a nationality on a Soviet passport.) This was particularly favourable to the tiny minorities who were politically insignificant (unlike the Jews, the Volga Germans etc who had international ties). However, since the collapse of the USSR, nationalism has been given open imprimator in all the constituent republics, leading to civil war in Chechnya etc, various secessionist tendencies, legal discrimination, the rise of fascist groups etc - all of which has led to an escalation of ethnic tension. In this environment, vulnerable minorities - particularly non-whites in European areas - have every reason to assimilate, at least nominally. I wonder how many Ezid, Kurds etc register as such on their passport? I wonder whether it is even still possible to do so??--Jack Upland 22:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't it rather be a religious group template than an ethnic group template? Most Yazidis are usually ethnic Kurds anyway. Funkynusayri 01:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is many if not most Yezidi don't consider themselves as Kurdish, but rather as an ethnic Yezidi, similar to Jewish being considered an ethnicity as well. Chaldean 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro Text Why is it relevant if this religion pre-dates the majority religions of Iraq. The lead paragraph should be focused on this religion solely, not immediately clash it with Islam. 20:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware we have a "religious group template", but of course you could create one. If you do, you'll unleash a whole bunch of dispute over which template to use in particular cases, so I suggest you consider this our "religious and/or ethnic group template" instead. dab (𒁳) 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is one actually, it is used on for example the Druze page, and many others. I think it is more appropriate for the Yazidi page to use the religious group template, as their religion is what defines them, and using it wouldn't imply that they are solely Kurdish, for example. Funkynusayri 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Religious_groupFunkynusayri 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

right. I have no opinion on this. I think it is pointless to distinguish between two different templates that essentially have the same slots. But why, I cannot help asking myself, does the "infobox religious group" sport a "religions" parameter? --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It seems pointless, yes, and it seems like it was modeled heavily on the ethnic group box, but with an important difference, the "scriptures" parameter, where for example Kitêba Cilwe could be placed, if we had some sources on it. I didn't create the box anyhow, but it's better than having a "related ethnic groups" parameter, which refers to the ethnicity of the majority of the adherents of the religious group itself. Funkynusayri 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Look at the infobox for the Copts, makes sense there. I even believe it was a Copt who made the box. Funkynusayri 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Melek Ta'us or Malak Ta’us or Melek Taus

Name is spelled inconsistently in article. I am standardising them all as Melek Taus, purely for consistency's sake, and because there is a link to an entry "Melek Taus", so spelled. If anyone more knowledgeable thinks it should be something else, then go for it. Myles325a 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistensy is the key. I don't know that there's a prefered spelling for the word.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "correct" transliteration, but we should get adopt a standard spelling and note the variants - once.--Jack Upland 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Since there seems to be a revert war brewing...

• Main articles: 2007 Mosul massacre, Du’a Khalil Aswad, and 2007 Qahtaniya bombings
  for further information on recent news events mentioning Yazidis.

or something along that line.

I feel that since two events targeted the group and one event involved the group these events should be mentioned. All events mentioned have their own fleshed out articles and little except a descriptive pointer line should be used within this article. If anyone can phrase it better then I have, please feel free. I'm add that line in. Dogsgomoo 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I edited the line to make it prose, but it's a good resolution to the problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

cuchullain, you are so nice and chilled...how can I consider entering a nasty troll-like edit war, with someone like you acting maturely.

and yes it was a good resolution to two idiots editing and undoing things.Sennen goroshi 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all you have to learn to discuss issues in a respectful manner. If you keep on your personal attacks you will be reported.Heja Helweda 00:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not object to a few more sentances of description, these are all noteworthy events, but we were probably overdoing it before, giving too much space to events in 2007 when the religion is hundreds or thousands of years old. We have more detailed articles on the three events already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not very sure if including murders/crimes makes sense for a general encyclopedia article for a religion which has followers in many countries. This would be like inserting 9/11 and OBL in the Islam's page or Arab's page. Isn't that one noteworthy for starting two wars?!!! It's funny if that happens then people run around shouting racism but when it comes to a endangered religious minority with no power and influence nobody bothers to object. News of murders, crimes, bombings etc, skews the neutral point of view and leads the readers into making misleading generalizations about a religion and a people.Heja Helweda 00:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you are talking about when it comes to personal attacks. I personally don't know you, and neither do I have any feelings negative or positive regarding Kurds or Yazidi people, I have no reason to have anything other than a neutral point of view. Having a brief mention of an news event that was covered internationaly seems to be notable to me. When you look at the USA page, it has the Sept 11th attacks mentioned, the christianity page mentions the crusades, and the jewish page mentions the holocaust. While the Yazidi might not be as well known as any of the above, an incident as was mentioned is of note. Maybe you are right, and mentioning a stoning that was watched by over 1000 people will make people think badly of the Yazidi, however should all mention of the holocaust be removed from wikipedia incase people think badly of the Germans? I think not. It is part of recent history, instead of removing it, if you are so concerned about the image it gives people, why not balance it with something positive?Sennen goroshi 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is, these are event that are strictly notable towards the Yazidi community as a whole. We don't want to skew towards recentism, but we need to cover something if it affects the wider and international community in the way these events have. It is encyclopedic to include information on something important or terrible that happens to a relatively small group if it affects a large percentage of their population or achieves international notoriety, for instance noting the Holocaust on the Judaism page. It's true the Jewish religion has much greater numbers and influence than the Yazidi, but when 500 Yazidi are killed in a car bomb attack, it's a large chunk of them, and should be reported. One would expect similar treatment if the Mandaeans were the subject of major events. Examining other countries, articles on the Cao Dai of Vietnam or the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the United States should include information on major notable events that happen to those groups.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. although I am repeating myself, if someone is concerned with a negative image given by an article, they should balance the negative with something positive, rather than just removing the negative. Having said that, wikipedia is not here to help people form opinions, its here to provide relevant facts.Sennen goroshi 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Need NPOV at "Divisions of Islam" article

The Yazidi entry at Divisions of Islam seems biased, written strongly from the point of view of orthodox Islam. NPOV help requested there from anyone more informed than I. Thanks. 88.64.152.181 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Views of outsiders etc...

This section is a hodge podge and needs to be reorganised. Current events should be separate. Obscure references by people like H P Lovecraft probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. Their inclusion seems to be an attempt to marginalise the view that Yazidi are "devil worshippers": attribute it to fiction and thence sidestep a discussion (see discussion above, "This article is dishonest").--Jack Upland 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Twelvers?

Could someone explain why the infobox on Twelvers, which is a Shi'a sect, is included on a page that is not a Muslim sect?--Vidkun (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not Yezidi, Not Yazidi but ÊzîdÎ

Dont care how much you guys fight over Yazidi or i dont know what, but they call themself Êzîdî!

ÊzîdÎs are NOT an ethnic group

They are kurds, and this article should be written as the kurds who practise this religon are called êzîdîs.

I want to add one more thing, they never marry any one who isn't êzîdî. And they are very very strict on this point. You can never be a êzîdî or join them, both of your parents must be êzîdîs. And if you leave them, you can never come back. (my explanation to this is that they say they are from Adam and others are from Adam and Eva, and they have this in their blood so no one else can become it if it isn't in their blood)

This mean that they are 100% kurds and if someone check their DNA you will see a true kurdish genetic (DNA-testing is hard to connect groups to, but since it is being used against the kurds in other articles it would do great if somone check some êzîdîs dna)